The Importance of Mindfulness in the Achievement of Optimal Functioning: Conceptualization for Research
2. The importance of optimal functioning
Positive psychologyexplores theproactivity of human behavior.This theoretical orientation is non- deficit and suggests that the study of achievable human endeavors is a main priority for consideration [1, 4]. Negative and deficit models of human behavior (e.g., behaviorism) tend to focus on maladaptive functioning (e.g., school disengagement: [5]), pessimism, and preven- tive measures for rectification purposes. This approach to the study of human behavior is outdated, perhaps, as very little is made to understand about human strengths and the facilitation of self-fulfillment of inner needs.
Positive psychology, credited to Seligman, Csíkszentmihályi, Diener, Maslow, and others is a
‘branch’ of psychology that focuses on inner strengths, resilience, virtues, and personal flourishing. This theoretical orientation places emphasis on the ‘positives’ and the self- gratification and self-fulfillment of a person’s inner needs [1, 2]. Rather than focusing on weaknesses, shortcomings, and preventive measures, positive psychology delves into positive outlooks in life, such as the personal enrichment of positive emotional functioning (e.g., an
Educational Psychology - Between Certitudes and Uncertainties 40
extreme sense of happiness), positive social climates, and achievement of optimal functioning [6, 7]. In the context of academia, for example, a secondary school student may project and incline towards positive outlooks in life, and not focus on past and/or current shortcomings and failures. This may consist of personal resolve in the learning of different subject areas for mastery, personal growth, and enjoyment purposes. From a non-educational point of view, likewise, a senior citizen may capitalize on his/her positive feel-good experiences to lead a healthier lifestyle.
We contend that optimal functioning is an important facet of personal development. Optimal functioning varies in accordance with the context at hand, for example, an extreme state of happiness that is sustained (e.g., optimal emotional functioning), exceptional mathematic results (e.g., optimal cognitive functioning), and/or proactive social relationships with others in the community, consequently resulting in the establishment of networks, etc. (e.g., optimal social functioning).
Specific to positive psychology is the tenet that individuals, in general, strive to achieve self- fulfillment and live to their fullest potentials [8]. What is of interest for us, as individuals, is howwe achieve an internal state of optimal functioning. This is a pervasive issue that a number of scholars, to date, have made concerted attempts to address (e.g., [9, 10]). In the area ofstudent motivation, a number of researchers have proposed different theoretical orientations that could explain students’motivational beliefs, cognition patterns and learning experiences, for exam- ple:personal self-efficacy[11, 12],academic buoyancy[13, 14],optimism[15, 16], andhope[17, 18].
Our own research development has also made theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions to the study of optimal functioning. In particular, for consideration, clarity, and in-depth understanding, our seminal publication in 2016, titled ‘Introducing the concept of Optimal Best: Theoretical and methodological contributions’, proposed a framework to explain the concept of optimal achievement best [19]. We revised this initial proposition in 2017 and formally introduced our theoretical contribution of optimal functioning, coined as the Frame- work of Achievement Bests (e.g., [7, 8]). The Framework of Achievement Bests provides theoret- ical understanding intothe process of optimization, which we argue could account and explain a person’s achievement of optimal functioning. Like any other inquiries, our theorization of optimization is ongoing in terms of its development [3]. One notable aspect, arising from the recent Phan et al. [7] publication is a focus on the methodological conceptualization of the process of optimization. In this chapter, we want to delve in detail into a methodological model of optimization for investigation that we have just conceptualized. Some aspects of this innovative conceptualization of optimization have briefly been mentioned in Phan et al [26].
2.1. The process of optimization: an overview
How individuals reach their optimal functioning in life is a question that of interest for many scholars. Existing research, interestingly, has explored other theoretical concepts that also con- note the importance of optimal functioning:personal best goals[20, 21],flourishing[22, 23],thriving [24, 25], andpersonal striving[26, 27]. However, despite this development, very little is known about aprocessthat could facilitate achievement of experience of flourishing, thriving, etc.
Optimization is process that could serve to facilitate and optimize a person’s state of function- ing. Researchers have often used terminologies and phrases such as‘optimizing effect’,‘Vari- able A can optimize Variable B…’, and ‘human optimization’ without truly explaining what they actually mean. The notion of optimization, we contend, is not analogous to the concepts of‘enhancement’,‘predictive effect’, and/or‘causal flow’. Fraillon’s [9] theoretical overview of subjective well-being briefly mentioned the concept of optimization, which the author theo- rized as the difference between a person’s actual best functioning and his/her notional best functioning. This definition, despite its limited scope, provided grounding for the development of our Framework of Achievement Bests [7, 8].
Our theorization of the Framework of Achievement Bests, derived from Phan et al.’s [19]
article, postulates the dichotomy of levels of best practice by which there are there are different levels of a person’s functioning—for example: realistic achievement best, defined as a person’s actual level of functioning at the present time, and optimal achievement best, defined as a person’s indication at the present time of the maximization of his/her competence in a subject matter. In the context of academia, for example, realistic achievement best focuses on a stu- dent’s actual demonstration of knowledge and/or skills (e.g., I can solve 20 easy arithmetic problems and get 90% correct). Optimal achievement best, in contrast, emphasizes a student’s mastery competence of his/her learning, which in this case reflects the best of his/her ability (e.g., I know that I can solve more complex arithmetic problems and get 85% correct). Our theorization [7, 8], this case, contends that reaching optimal achievement best from realistic achievement best would require some‘form’of optimization.
Adapting from our recent work [3, 7],Figure 1illustrates a methodological conceptualization of the process of optimization that we recently developed. We argue that in order to under- stand the process of optimization, it is important for us to expand on the tenets of optimal functioning. In this analysis, from our conceptualization, an achievement of optimal function- ing requires the fulfillment of three main criteria: (i) that there is apoint of reference, denoted as
Figure 1. Optimization and levels of best practice. Adapted from Phan & Ngu [8] and Phan et al. [7].
Educational Psychology - Between Certitudes and Uncertainties 42
L1T1, for personal benchmarking with the level of optimal best, which is denoted as L2T2, (ii) the requirement of time precedence in order for a person to develop and experience an
‘increase’in optimal functioning, and (iii) theactivation and enactmentof psychological, educa- tional, and/or psychosocial agencies in order to facilitate, mediate, strengthen, and improve a state of functioning from T1to T2. Overall then, from this explanation, achievement of optimal functioning is made when we are able to gauge into the difference between L2T2and L1T1(i.e., ΔL21), where L1= realistic achievement best, L2= optimal achievement best.
Optimization consequently, from our conceptualization, would assist in the achievement of LBT2from LAT1. Differing from previous theorizations (e.g., [22, 28]), we contend that success- ful accomplishment ofΔL21would indicateexperience of flourishing. Personal flourishing, in this sense, reflects a person’s successful accomplishment of a state of optimal functioning (i.e., L2T2). Our revision of the Framework of Achievement Bests [3, 7] theorizes that the operational nature of optimization involves the activation and enactment (AE) ofpsychological(e.g., hope:
[29]), educational (e.g., an instructional design: [30]), and psychosocial (e.g., teacher-student relationship: [31]) agencies that serve assources of personal energization (E), which then stimu- lates the buoyancy ofintrinsic motivation(i.e., defined as a person’s intrinsic motive to persist a course of action—for example, learning Calculus), personal resolve (i.e., defined as a person’s internal state of decisiveness and resolute to strive for optimal functioning),effective functioning (i.e., defined as a person’s purposive state of organization, structured thoughts, and behavioral patterns and his/her deliberate intent to succeed), mental strength (i.e., defined as a person’s mindset that he/she has the capacity to deal with obstacles, stressors, and pressure), andeffort expenditure (i.e., a person’s conscious attempt to achieve a particular outcome) in order to arouse,intensify, andsustain(AIS) a person’s state of functioning. We consider the importance of these five comparable attributes for their positive nature—that is, individually and/or in combination, they encourage and facilitate a person to achieve optimal outcomes.
We argue that the differential influences of psychological, educational, and psychosocial agen- cies are subject to the contextual situation at hand, as well as the timely opportunity that may arise. For example, the optimization of physical functioning (e.g., a football player’s scoring of goals) may benefit more from psychological (e.g., the use of self-efficacy beliefs to convince the football player’s resolve) and/or psychosocial (e.g., the provision of an adequate environment for training) agencies, whereas educational agencies (e.g., the teaching of an effective instruc- tional design) would be more appropriate in the optimization of cognitive functioning (e.g., a student’s academic performance in mathematics). In a similar vein, we argue that on a daily basis, the provision of opportunities for optimization purposes may vary in accordance with the contextual situation and/or other reasons. What this means then, from our conceptualiza- tion, is that at any point in time, not all different types of agencies may be available for usage.
The source of energization from psychological, educational, and psychosocial agencies, we contend, may then stimulate the buoyancy of five distinctive and comparable attributes (e.g., intrinsic motivation). The same argument here is that influences from these five attributes to arouse, intensify, and sustain an internal state of functioning also vary. In other words, as an example, the optimizing impact of a psychosocial agency (e.g., teacher-student relationship) on emotional functioning may only stimulate intrinsic motivation and personal resolve. In a
similar vein, a psychological agency (e.g., personal self-efficacy for academic learning) to optimize cognitive functioning may stimulate intrinsic motivation, mental strength, personal resolve, and effort expenditure. An effective educational agency (e.g., the use of an appropriate instructional design), likewise, may instead stimulate intrinsic motivation, effective function- ing, and effort expenditure.
Our theorization of the concept of optimization, expanding on from our original Framework of Achievement Bests, suggests that unlike associative (i.e., r) and predictive (i.e., β) effects, the impact of optimization would result in a person experiencing some form of ‘energy’, which then could enable the achievement of optimal functioning. One interesting facet for consider- ation is whether and to what extent we could actually ‘quantify’the process of optimization.
The quantification of optimization, from our point of view, considers the magnitude (or strength) of a person’s experience of energization. In our recent work [3, 8], for example, we introduced the concepts ofintensity of optimization(i.e., defined as the amount of resources that would be needed to optimize a person’s level of functioning) and scope of optimization (i.e., defined as the amount of time and effort that would be needed to optimize a person’s level of functioning). The magnitude of optimization, in this case, is postulated to encompass both intensity and scope. A level of optimal functioning that is relatively simple from a current level is likely to require minimal optimization. In contrast, however, a level of optimal functioning that is more complex (e.g., L1T1: knowing how to solve equations with one unknown, x:
x+ 52 = 10! L2 T2: knowing how to solve quadratic equations with two unknowns,xand y: (x+y)2= 4 and 4x+ 10y= 20) would require a greater amount of optimization.
With the possible quantification of optimization, we consider a related theoretical concept, which we coin as theindex of optimization. We propose that the index of optimization, denoted asγ, is intricately associated with the difference between a person’s current level of function- ing and his/her level of optimal functioning (i.e., ΔL21). The quantification of the index of optimization, from our proposition, is as follows:
γ¼AEþEþAIS (1)
whereγ= index of optimization, AE = activation and enactment of psychological, educational, and psychosocial agencies, E = the experience of energization, which consists of the stimulation and buoyancy of motivation, personal resolve, effective functioning, mental strength, and effort expenditure, and AIS = arousal, intensity, and sustainability.
This postulation regarding the index of optimization and, more importantly, the quantification of optimization is innovative, as it connotes that, likewise, it is possible to measure, assess, and quantify a person’s level of optimal functioning. The index of optimization, in this case, reflects the totality of AE, E, and AIS, and equates to a person’s experience of flourishing—that is, γ≈ΔL21. In other words, from our theoretization, a person’s energy is likely to assist and result in a level of optimal functioning. At this stage, however, we recognize one notable issue that is unresolved: the calculation of the index of optimization. Despite this uncertainty, we argue that our expanded theorization of optimization is effectual for its explanatory account of a person’s state of flourishing. The acquisition of a source of energization, in this case, is of interest for us to discuss in detail. The psychological agency, as we explained [7], may serve as a major source
Educational Psychology - Between Certitudes and Uncertainties 44
of a person’s experience of energization. Our interest for discussion entails the extent to which mindfulness,as a psychological agency,could energize a person to achieve optimal best.